Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 106th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For members' information, this meeting is being televised.

Today, as we begin our study of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments, we are pleased to be joined by the Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions. She is accompanied by Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, and Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Adviser.

Thank you for being here.

Thanks for coming, Minister. I'll turn it over to you for your opening statement.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to apologize to the committee for my tardiness. As the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley noted, I am going to blame my three-month-old son for that, who decided he was hungry just as I was leaving. Anyway, I want to thank the committee for inviting me here and for your commitment to study Bill C-76.

I would also like to thank Minister Brison, who acted as Minister of Democratic Institutions during my parental leave.

I am accompanied today by two officials, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, from the Privy Council Office: Allen Sutherland, the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Machinery of Government; and Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Adviser, Democratic Institutions Secretariat. The DI team at PCO is small but mighty. I cannot say enough about the work they have done to prepare Bill C-76. I really want to thank them for their hard work and dedication on this issue, but also on all things in our file.

Our government is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions and restoring Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic processes.

We believe the strength of our democracy depends on the participation of as many Canadians as possible. By undoing the unfair aspects of the Conservatives' so-called Fair Elections Act, we are making it easier and more convenient for all Canadians to vote.

We are making the electoral process more accessible to Canadians with disabilities, as well as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are restoring voting rights to more than one million Canadians living abroad.

We are strengthening our laws, closing loopholes, and bringing in robust enforcement regimes to make it more difficult for bad actors to influence our elections. We are requiring greater transparency from third parties and political parties so Canadians can better understand who seeks to influence their vote. This legislation will result in a modern, robust, and enforceable election law that addresses the realities of a modern election campaign.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the hard work of this committee last year while it studied the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, after the 2015 election.

I believe you will find your work reflected in the legislation. Approximately 85% of the CEO's recommendations are contained in Bill C-76. This committee has already agreed in principle with over 50% of this bill.

There are also components of Bill C-76 that this committee has not studied. I appreciate that the committee may want to focus on these elements of the bill. Please be assured that my officials and I are prepared to provide whatever assistance you need.

Bill C-76 makes our electoral system more accessible for all Canadians. It increases the opening hours of advance polls, strengthens obligations towards Canadians with disabilities, expands voting rights to about a million Canadians living abroad, and makes it easier for Canadian Forces members to vote. The elections modernization act also encourages candidates and registered parties to campaign in a manner that will be more inclusive of persons with disabilities.

This bill also modernizes the administration of elections to make it easier for Canadians to vote, while maintaining strong and proven integrity measures.

As Minister of Democratic Institutions, one of my top priorities is to lead the Government of Canada's efforts to defend the Canadian electoral process from cyberthreats. Recent events on the international stage are a reminder that Canada is not immune from such threats. Bill C-76 proposes changes relating to foreign influence and online disruption that can be addressed within the Canada Elections Act.

While foreign entities were already banned from making contributions to political parties and candidates, our government is closing a loophole that allowed foreign entities to spend up to $500 on election advertising during the election period. In addition, all third parties will be required to maintain a Canadian bank account for all of their election-related revenues and expenses.

I also want to address the concern that foreign funds can be donated to third parties before June 30, then used during the writ or pre-writ period. Under Bill C-76, third parties are required to disclose the source of all funds they used during the writ or pre-writ period, regardless of when they received the funds. Further, any attempt to conceal the use of foreign funds for regulated activities in the pre-writ or writ period will be illegal under Bill C-76.

New provisions of the Canada Elections Act will clearly prohibit publications and advertisements—online and off-line—aimed at misleading the public as to their source. Similarly, fraudulent uses of computers aimed at affecting the results of an election will be strictly prohibited.

We all have a responsibility to combat foreign influence in our elections. Therefore, organizations selling advertising space will be banned from knowingly accepting foreign-funded election advertising.

In order to ensure compliance and enforcement, the elections modernization act includes several measures designed to make the commissioner of Canada elections more efficient and independent. The commissioner will now have the power to compel testimony and we will restore his power to lay charges. A new enforcement tool and administrative monetary penalties regime will also be at the commissioner's disposal.

Canadians expect electoral processes will be fair and transparent. They want to hear from all sides, not only from voices with the deepest pockets. These values have shaped Canadian electoral and political financing regimes for over 40 years.

However, the advent of fixed-date elections has been a game changer. Political actors and third parties are now able to plan partisan advertising campaigns ahead of the election period and, by doing so, circumvent the spirit of our laws.

Bill C-76 will define a pre-election period during which reporting requirements and spending limits will apply to registered parties and third parties.

The pre-election period will begin on June 30 of a fixed-date election year. It will provide more transparency by requiring third parties who spend more than $500 on partisan advertising, partisan activities, and election surveys to register with Elections Canada. Third parties will also have a legal obligation to identify themselves in advertising messages.

New spending limits will also apply to both third parties and political entities during that pre-writ period.

Mr. Chair, we cannot take for granted Canadians' trust in their democratic institutions. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our electoral process is transparent, accessible, reflective of modern best practices, and secure and sheltered from undue influence.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much, Minister.

For the first round we'll go to Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's good to see you again. Welcome back after your break. I've never had to be in that situation, but I can tell you it must have been absolutely wonderful at the same time. It is good to see you back again.

When we embarked upon this several years ago under what was then called the Fair Elections Act, there were some glaring omissions and glaring examples of what I thought was something that went against the idea that every Canadian citizen has a right to vote. It is our charter right to do so. There are things that bothered me.

The most egregious example to me was the voter information card, which we commonly call in rural Canada and the rest of Canada the voter identification card. Even though it doesn't carry that title, that is what it really is to these people. I used to see so many people, especially seniors, who would put a magnet on this card, and put it on their refrigerator to make sure that they went to vote. Not only was it a reminder, but it said who they were. I thought it was a great tool because it's one of the only national databases of identification. I'm glad to see that this legislation brings it back. I would love for you to comment on that.

The second part I would like for you to comment on is something which I thought was puzzling at the time. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the commissioner having the monetary penalties put now in front of them under this legislation, which I think is long overdue. They were removed from Elections Canada and put into public prosecutions where I thought the commissioner's role was still independent within Elections Canada, but they needed to be within that organization in order to get a better feel for their position.

There are two parts to the question. Could you talk about the VIC as we call it and also the commissioner being placed back to where they belong?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much, Scott, for your question and for your request on these two issues.

With regard to the VIC, the voter information card, this is really important for Canadians. In terms of establishing their residency, it's important to note that the VIC can't be used on its own, but can be used with other forms of identification to establish residency. When you think about it, there are not very many forms of identification that actually have your photo, your name, and your address on them. There are numbers of Canadians who don't have driver's licences, for example. For those Canadians, this is really important.

I thought that the acting CEO, Mr. Perrault, had a great point when he talked about the fact that this is actually about dignity for a lot of people. When you think about it, for a lot of married couples, particularly older couples, there might not be mail that comes in the name of both individuals, or there might not be bills or utility bills that could be used to establish residency. When I think about people in my community who really relied on the VIC, I think of elderly women in particular who needed that piece of identification, women who perhaps don't drive or have stopped driving and who don't have mail coming to them in their name that establishes residency with regard to Elections Canada.

In terms of re-enfranchising individuals and ensuring that we're providing dignity to voters and electors, I think it's absolutely critical that we re-establish the voter information card as a piece of identification that can establish residency when we're at a poll.

With regard to the second part of your question and putting the commissioner of Canada elections back within the house of Elections Canada, it's exactly what you're talking about with regard to being within that infrastructure as opposed to at the department of public prosecutions.

Furthermore, with regard to the commissioner, we've re-empowered the commissioner to lay charges and have also added a new tool, which is the ability to compel testimony in order to be able to enforce elections legislation. This was a case that was made very strongly by the commissioner. It's all well and good if we have in place a set of laws that are strict, that limit undue influence, and that really ensure people are abiding by the books, but if we don't have the tools and the ability to actually prosecute and ensure that those rules are being followed, then it's not strong enough. Personally, and on behalf of the government, I think this is very important to ensure that those laws are being upheld.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I know you had discussions with former commissioners and the current commissioner. Did you ever get the feeling from talking to them that they had lost independence in any way, shape, or form by being within Elections Canada and working so closely with the CEO?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

No.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Very good. That was what we heard the last time around.

There is another thing I'd like to talk about. I know this is pretty comprehensive, and I think the opposition accuses us of having an omnibus bill. If I may make their argument for them and dispel it at the same time, this is all about the Elections Act. As a former opposition critic of the—quote, unquote—Fair Elections Act, I can honestly say that it takes a lot to fix something that went so wrong at that time.

The other issue I want to talk about, which I think is a good initiative, is that of allowing younger voters to get involved before they reach the age of 18. There are two facets to this in this legislation. On the one hand, they can register to be future electors, and on the other hand, they can also be involved in working for Elections Canada. Could you talk about both of those, please?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes, of course.

I'll start with the latter, which is that currently under elections legislation you have to be 18 to work in a polling booth. There was a very successful initiative out in British Columbia called “Youth at the Booth” during the last provincial campaign, which had high school students working on polling day. Elections BC talked about how great they were as poll workers, but also, it was a way to get them involved in elections and excited about the prospect of voting.

That's something the former CEO recommended in his recommendations following 2015. It's something that we think is an absolutely excellent initiative, particularly because we know that Elections Canada does struggle to fill the polls with poll workers during general elections.

By extending that pool, you're getting bright-eyed, eager students who are excited about this, and who then are also thinking about participating in the vote when they do turn 18, which leads to the idea of having a national youth voter registry. This basically would enable 14- to 17-year-olds to choose to register, so that when they turn 18, they get onto the electors list. Of course, that's kept in waiting until they turn 18. None of that information would be shared until they're 18, when the electors list is shared.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's great to have you here. Welcome back to the committee. I think this is your first time here since you've been back from your brief leave. I wouldn't classify that as a break, myself, and I don't think you would consider it that way either, but we're glad to have you back.

I'll start with this, Minister. Do you believe it's important to make decisions based on evidence?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I do believe it's important to make decisions based on evidence.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I thought you might think so. As well, is there value in learning from the experiences of others and is that important?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Always.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Excellent. I thought we would agree on that too.

In doing this study, do you think it's advisable for this committee to study this legislation thoroughly and with those concepts in mind? Also, would it be prudent to hear from the relevant experiences of others to ensure we're getting the legislation right?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes, which is why you're undertaking this study right now, and why PROC has already done 30 hours of study on almost half of this bill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay.

Given that we agree on those things, and given that Ontario is in the middle of an election where they're for the first time dealing with some changes they have made, some that are similar in nature or cover the same subject matter as some of the changes being proposed in this federal legislation, for example, the future voters registry, privacy policies for political parties, some limits and restrictions on spending by third parties, and government advertising restrictions, which is something the opposition has been suggesting as a potential amendment to this bill, would you say that it would be valuable for us to be able to hear from those involved in the Ontario elections, whether that be election officials, which we certainly should, or others who are involved in it, and hear about any of the difficulties they might have encountered in their experiences?

I think the last thing we would want to do would be to repeat any mistakes that might have been made there, or to not learn from those experiences when they're so readily available to us. What are your thoughts? Would it be advisable for us to hear from those involved in the Ontario election? Would you agree with me on that as well?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The committee is independent and decides who to invite to listen to as witnesses, and I would not want to add to or detract from that. You will make your own decisions on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You don't have an opinion on it? What are your thoughts?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As we say, it's important for the committee to make those decisions.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You don't have a personal opinion on whether that would be a valuable thing for us to learn from?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As I said, I think the committee makes those decisions itself.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. Fair enough.

When this legislation was introduced, your government introduced a notice of time allocation after only one hour of debate. I would say that's certainly not the signal of a government that really legitimately intends to work with the other parties to try to bring forward something that will be in the best interests of everyone.

However, during the half-hour debate that occurred after time allocation was moved by the government, you stated a number of times that you felt it was really important that this move to committee because you felt this was the place where it could get the best discussion and where it could receive the full amount of the substantive debate that's required. I would like to get your opinion on how much time you would suggest would be required to ensure substantive debate.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Again, as the committee is independent, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. That is really up to committee members to decide.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Minister, I appreciate that. I agree with you that it certainly is up to us to decide, but our goal in having witnesses here is obviously to hear their expertise. Being the minister responsible, I would expect that you would obviously have some expertise, and it would be helpful for us to get your opinion and your thoughts on the matter. Would you have any sense as to what you think would be an appropriate amount of debate?